what i mean by it is that sediment layers are not always consistent so using sediment layers as a proof of anything is flawed. one example is at Africa's Lake Rudolph and the Omo Valley (200kms away) where sediment layers were not consistent with each other. They were dated to the same period, but the pig fossils they found at each location were not the same type of pig fossil.

So what im questioning is how sediment layers can be used so affirmatively when they are not always consistent. Would you use a calculator which occasionally produced an incorrect answer?

the sediment layers are not always consistent. In view of inconsistencies, how can sedimentary layers be considered 100% accurate?

Sediment layers are always consistent with the laws of physics, chemistry, and geology. If you can show just one counterexample, then please feel free to elaborate as there would be a Nobel prize waiting.

What is not consistent is the concept that evolution never occurred in the past or at present, except right after those 'kinds' super-evolved at a super-dooper rate right after any flood when housecats gave birth to lions.

What is not consistent is the uninterrupted history of humanity, be it in Egypt, India, China, the Americas or even Mesopotamia where Sargon supposedly created the Akkadian Empire with an army of scuba diving preteens in the very midst or immediately after some purported worldwide flood.

What is not consistent is to derive benefits from science such as gasoline, electricity, and agriculture, which depend upon an understanding of geologic, physical, and evolutionary processes to discover and manage all the while cursing all honest scientists as heretics because of (at best) some puny cult misrepresentation of God and Christianity.

What is consistent is your refusal to admit when you are wrong, such as when you demanded that oxygen and hydrogen required immense amounts of energy to create water.

You are just as wrong about sedimentary processes being inconsistent with natural laws, but IMO you would far prefer playing the fool as opposed to learning anything from anyone who actually and honestly studied any subject, be it religion, science or logic.

Why can't you go to a public library and make the slightest attempt to learn about the natural sciences at an elementary level? What are you so afraid of?

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

You disagree? So you're saying that the fact that 70% of the earth's surface is covered by water is evidence that the remaining 30% was also covered by water at one time? Why? Is there something about 70% in particular? If water only covered 60% of the earth, would that be sufficient evidence of flooding of the remaining portion? Of is the threshold some other number, maybe 50% or 40%? Or is it the mere presence of any amount of the earth's surface covered by water that provides sufficient evidence of flooding of the rest of it?

what i mean by it is that sediment layers are not always consistent so using sediment layers as a proof of anything is flawed.one example is at Africa's Lake Rudolph and the Omo Valley (200kms away) where sediment layers were not consistent with each other. They were dated to the same period, but the pig fossils they found at each location were not the same type of pig fossil.

So what im questioning is how sediment layers can be used so affirmatively when they are not always consistent. Would you use a calculator which occasionally produced an incorrect answer?

Well, did it ever occur to you or your uncited 'source' that there were different species of the same date 200km away in a different type of sediment because they represent a different environment? Is the world today all desert or all river estuary?

Is this what your concept of geologic consistency demands? That the entire earth had a single environment worldwide? Have you ever considered that the processes from the past may actually be consistent with processes seen today such as variability in environments?

The library Peg, the library. Why are you afraid of learning?

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

what i mean by it is that sediment layers are not always consistent so using sediment layers as a proof of anything is flawed.one example is at Africa's Lake Rudolph and the Omo Valley (200kms away) where sediment layers were not consistent with each other. They were dated to the same period, but the pig fossils they found at each location were not the same type of pig fossil.

So ... sediments that came from the same time, but from different places, had different kinds of pigs in them?

OK, I'm convinced. The world is 6,000 years old, Noah's Flood happened, and everything geologists know is wrong. Because if they were right, then obviously every location in the world would have exactly the same kind of pig. That follows directly from some principle of geology that I can't remember right now.

Are you serious?

So what im questioning is how sediment layers can be used so affirmatively when they are not always consistent. Would you use a calculator which occasionally produced an incorrect answer?

Well, my calculator is equally "inconsistent". When I ask it to calculate 2 + 2, it gives the answer 4. But when I ask it what 2 + 200 is, it gives the answer 202. Obviously it is "inconsistent", or it wouldn't give different answers to different questions.

one example is at Africa's Lake Rudolph and the Omo Valley (200kms away) where sediment layers were not consistent with each other. They were dated to the same period, but the pig fossils they found at each location were not the same type of pig fossil.

Well you've got that wrong. The KBS tuff of Lake Rudolph is a volcanic ash deposit, meaning there is a mixture of older and younger rocks. this contamination by older rocks gave an age far older date than the date of the Omo Valley, despite both sides having the same pig fossils. Of course, once the contamination was taken into account and suitable samples taken, both regions were shown to have the same age.

How can you judge the merits of scientific explanations, when you can't even understand creationists arguments?

one example is at Africa's Lake Rudolph and the Omo Valley (200kms away) where sediment layers were not consistent with each other. They were dated to the same period, but the pig fossils they found at each location were not the same type of pig fossil.

Wait, I haven't finished mocking you.

Surely the standard model of "flood geology" is that all sedimentary rocks were formed at exactly the same time, namely during Noah's Flood?

So if having different pigs in different places at the same time is an argument against real geology, why isn't having different pigs in different places an argument against flood geology, which claims that all fossils were laid down at the same time?

The surface of the hall which houses a pool in my city is covered by water at 70%, is that evidence one day it was totally covered by water in the past? How can you not see that there are no logical connexions between the two? The only way to argue this way would be to consider the volume of water on Earth and the amount required to flood it. The surface covered by water has nothing to do with it. Such a thing should be obvious if you ever studied geometry at high school level. I don't ever unverstand how you could use such a stupid argument.

what i mean by it is that sediment layers are not always consistent so using sediment layers as a proof of anything is flawed.one example is at Africa's Lake Rudolph and the Omo Valley (200kms away) where sediment layers were not consistent with each other. They were dated to the same period, but the pig fossils they found at each location were not the same type of pig fossil.

So what im questioning is how sediment layers can be used so affirmatively when they are not always consistent. Would you use a calculator which occasionally produced an incorrect answer?

Geological layers are generally millions of years old, or much older. I'm talking about the soils under your feet, being anywhere from a few years old to tens of thousands of years old.

The biblical scholars have agreed upon an age of about 4,350 years ago for the purported flood, why would we be looking in rocks millions of years old for evidence? If we are looking for an event that occurred 4,350 years ago, we need to look in soils about 4,350 years old for the evidence. That's basic archaeology 101.

And the soil layers don't have to be consistent, as each area will have different topography and hydrology--but the effects of a global flood certainly would have to be worldwide and that means it should be found just about everywhere you look, and those effects would override any local differences. But we don't find that evidence.

Face it, in spite of all of your wild guess "what ifs" you have presented no credible evidence supporting a flood. Your stubborn "is so" doesn't make it so.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Note that Peg makes the most common Creationist failing: instead of presenting evidence to support her version of events, she simply attacks the conclusions of the opposition, as if there are only two choices, and if she invalidates part of all of modern geology then she somehow proves that the Flood happened by default.

It doesn't work that way. Even if Peg were to successfully turn modern geology on it's head with her questions regarding so-called "inconsistencies" in geological layers, she still would have produced no evidence whatsoever of a global Flood. After all, even if all of modern science is wrong, evolution never happened, modern estimates of the age of the Earth are completely off, radiological dating is unreliable, etc, the Bible could also be wrong.

Maybe the Hindus got it right.

Or maybe nobody did, and we're all wrong.

In any case, until and unless Peg starts posting evidence that supports the occurrence of a global Flood some thousands of years ago (hopefully with something more substantial than "I disagree," or "that part of the Earth is covered in water means that all of the Earth was covered in water at one point"), she's still failing.